Podyx MCP

podyx_get_tour_availability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read available tour start times for a studio on a specified date, enabling read-only availability checks before booking. A quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

Instructions

Read native setup-bound or roomless studio-wide tour start times GET /api/v2/studio-tours/{id}/availability. Studio-owned native checkout. Current key/account/public_api authority and tenant ownership apply on reads, writes and receipt replay. A permitted replacement studio key may recover a known checkout. Accepted obligations remain recoverable when headless new entry is disabled. Instructions are browser capabilities, never proof of settlement. Confirmation verifies the native provider. An uncertain provider outcome retains its frozen request identity; do not create another tender. Token payloads are never in receipts or job arguments. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "podyx_get_tour_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds tenant/authority constraints and pagination guidance, but most of it is unrelated checkout, tender, receipt, and token-payload policy that does not apply to an availability read. It does not contradict the annotations, but the useful behavioral detail is diluted by boilerplate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is useful, but it is followed by a long block of generic policy prose about tenders, receipts, token payloads, and confirmation behavior. Much of that text does not earn its place in a simple two-parameter availability read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what date scoping does and what availability information is returned. Instead it omits both while spending most of its length on unrelated transaction rules.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both required parameters are undocumented. The endpoint string hints that path.id is a studio-tour UUID, but query.date is never explained, so the description does not compensate for the absent parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource: reading studio tour start times via /api/v2/studio-tours/{id}/availability. The jargon 'native setup-bound or roomless studio-wide' muddies the scope, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like podyx_customer_availability or podyx_v1_get_booking_availability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says 'Read/preview only' and warns to follow pagination and that a quote does not reserve a slot, which gives some operational context. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of the availability, quote, or published-tour siblings, so the agent must infer routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server